Hero or Villain?

Hero or Villain?
Most people enjoy others who share the same interests that they do or laugh at the same jokes. Humans become angry when others mock or challenge them. They have their friends, and likewise, have their enemies. To Otto von Bismarck, (a nineteenth century German nationalist and Prussian chancellor), on the other hand, this kind of thinking made little sense. In matters of peace and war, Bismarck’s enemies could become friends at any moment, and his friends could instantly become enemies. Self- interests and needs dominated Bismarck’s actions. In Bismarck’s world, domination and national needs took priority. Although Bismarck practiced his nationalistic ideas by unifying the divided states of Germany, he did not adhere to popular sovereignty and allowed the balance of power to be broke down in his favor. He turned European nations against each other and was continuously on a control rage. Bismarck lacked faith in others, destroyed the system of government of Germany and acted brutally and selfishly, portraying that he was not simply a German nationalist, but rather a power-hungry expansionist and provoker.

Thesis Paragraph Harry Vardon

Harry Vardon Research Paper

Crimson red colored battlefields, throats that have been cut, patriotic chants of “make them bleed bleed blood and guts”, and one country that has risen above this is the nationalism we’ve all heard of. The armies of Bonaparte and Van Bismarck were familiar to the rush of nationalistic pride that came from victory in battle and for ages and ages before these leaders nationalism was the product of war and terroritorial struggle. However, in 1885 a new brand of nationalism was being developed under the leadership of Harry Vardon. This new mold of nationalism came from taking less than 80 strokes on green grass and white sand not thousands of lost lives lost in a far off land; this form of nationalist simply required the act of hitting a white ball under a blue sky. Despite its non-violent nature, golf, lead by Harry Vardon, became a battleground of sorts for countries to compete amongst each other through pure sport. Vardon’s golf tour through America serves as one of the first monumental example of the magnitude of nationalism that could be created through athletics. This paper will analyze to what extent was golf able to spawn nationalism, and unveil the true significance of Harry Vardon himself. Vardon is important because his life story shows the widespread nature of Marxist ideals and demonstrates how big of an impact the Industrial Revolution had on the “average European Man” in the late 19th century.

Karl Marx (Euro Research Paper)

Question: In such an economic crisis like The United States is in currently, how might Marx’s ideals be considered today? Was Marx’s economic system not valued during the 19th century because of the economic stability that prevailed throughout Europe? Did Marx sell his economic system well or was it perceived in a different light than he had hoped?

Thesis: Though Marx’s economic ideas might appear as a solution for our contemporary struggles, historians have shown that these ideals have been misinterpreted, changed, and modernized throughout the past centuries. Marx’s economic system was unable to compete with the thriving capitalistic system during the 19th century, and because of this Marx’s ideals were therefore turned down and refuted. However, this new system of ideas was unable to be perceived in a positive light because of the flourishing society that was in no need of an alteration. Marx’s system was unable to be executed because of the misinterpretations his different, radical ideas brought about and the fear that surrounded the thought of change.

A Response to others' Responses

There seems to be this ongoing debate on whether humanitarianism and imperialism aren't at all the same or whether they actually have very similar intentions and motives. Obviously most humanitarians don't go to developing countries, demand rubber and then slice off people's limbs, yet I do believe that some have similar attitudes as early imperialists had: this notion that its their obligation or responsibility to take care of the unfortunate. This paternalistic perspective still seems to last, for example, when you see those commercials with small mexican children walking through hills of garbage and an old (christian) man picks one up gently and tells you to donate just one dollar a day. Now, I'm not saying that he's an evil con man or anything like that, I just thought it interesting that in some ways, and in some cases humanitarian efforts seem like a PC version of Imperialism. 

Also, I noticed varying opinions on the "White Man's Burden" poem by Rudyard Kipling. I personally believe that he was being sarcastic but for some different reasons than previously mentioned. I do not think he had any sympathies for the 'natives' of India or elsewhere, instead he felt that Imperialism was in fact a burden...how ironic...Many have stated that he thinks of Imperialism as a sacrifice, but lets remember that a sacrifice is quite different than a burden. Sacrifices are things that people take on because it is their responsibility yet a burden is usually unnecessary and annoying. 

Imperialism Reaction

Reading other people’s impressions of imperialism and its historic significance caused me to wonder about whether it still exists, or will exist in the future. Someone mentioned that the class gap between extremely rich and extremely impoverished is rapidly growing. It’s scary to imagine what the next step in the pattern of imperialism could be when the wealth is already distributed so unevenly. Just look at many third- world, or underdeveloped, countries versus America. But in my opinion imperialism will remain six feet under, mostly because of how global our planet has become. Of course it’s necessary to understand I mean the offensive military actions taken by dominant nations, not the imperialistic attitude, which will exist as long as there are top world powers like the United States. But today justifications for imperialism wouldn’t be tolerated by the rest of the world. If a country tried to oppress another with an unprecedented war there would be a huge backlash. Other nations would come to their aid with their voices and their militaries. We live in a very global world society with a series of networks and allies. Not only would this morally gray behavior be chastised, but many other nations would be affected too. The ripple effect would hurt other nations through trade among other effects. I think we coexist with enough nations that are powerful enough to protect their allies, creating our own method of checks and balances. George Bush’s “war on terror” is an example of military reasoning that many people found to be unsound. Historically many imperialistic powers have acted self-righteous, hiding their true greed behind a façade of democracy or superiority.
Mostly everyone categorized imperialism as an evil force dominating our history textbooks. And while its corrupt nature is undisputable, the point was developed in someone’s paper that there have been benefits like rise of technology, educational programs, and global views that has spread understanding of other cultures. But another glaring negative, besides the killing and suffering of a country’s natives, is the fact that you can’t have imperialism without assimilation. I think this is attributed to the fact that people are afraid of what they don’t understand, including different culture. I wonder, is it possible to conquer another nation without decimating its identity (i.e. religion, dialect, beliefs)? Regardless, I believe the various aspects of imperialism are now a moot point, considering we live in such an interconnected world.

Neo-Colonialism

Chris Ryan

Neo-Colonialism

Throughout the Imperialist age in Europe, colonialism was justified by the notion that white people were culturally superior to peoples of other continents. The “White Man’s Burden” of civilizing foreign populations may not have been the colonizers primary concern, but efforts to assimilate those under control of the Europeans did occur. Though the European efforts to civilize its colony’s inhabitants resulted in the formulation of Westernized customs, the colonies were hardly transformed into the fully modernized industrious nations idealized by the concept of the white man’s burden. Instead nations in Africa, the Middle East and other parts of the world had trouble adjusting to the new customs imposed on them by their colonizers, and arguably left them in a more violent, troubled state than they had previously been in. Before the colonization of sub-Saharan Africa, the area was inhabited by tribes that differed in ethnicity and region of inhabitance. Though the area was not entirely peaceful, the natural formation of tribes provided relative socio-political stability in the region. However, when the Europeans colonized the region, they split up different nations regardless of tribal differences. The division of African colonies partnered with technological and cultural changes ushered onto the people of Africa created a very turbulent environment. Even after the age of Imperialism, the affects of neo-colonialism are felt throughout Africa, as the sub-continent is plagued by war, disease and poverty. Similar affects are seen throughout the Middle East and North Africa, as nations formerly part of the Ottoman Empire were arbitrarily divided, causing racial and religious conflict. As a result the region is very violent even today, as conflicts of religion are rampant throughout the region.

Though the colonizers intentions for those they were colonizing were allegedly good, the white man did not come close to completing his objective of creating civil, Western people. Instead the affects of neo-colonialism created conflict and poor quality of living even after the colonizers left their respective regions.

Response on Imperialism

Many people are saying that the Europeans justified their colonies through the “white man’s burden”. Some are saying that the Europeans didn’t really believe in the white man’s burden, and were only using it as an excuse to for their imperialistic conquests. Although this is partially true some Europeans may have just used the “white man’s burden” to justify their actions, but others actually thought they had a duty to uphold. Evidence of this can be found in the movie the “Rabbit Proof Fence”. This is a movie about how white Europeans attempted to get rid of the dark skinned color of the Indians. They did not gain anything by attempting to teach the kids English and to read and write. They only did so because of their moral obligations. This proves that some Europeans did believe in the “white man’s burden”. More evidence of this comes from missionaries. Missionaries went out into various foreign countries attempting to spread their religion to the natives in order to protect them from “hell”. The people who traveled to these far away places didn’t get any material benefit out of them either. They just risked their lives and left their homes because they thought that they had a moral obligation to do it—“the White Man’s Burden”.